Summary:
In 2009 a total of six bills were introduced that would permit grandparents to request court-ordered visitation against the wishes of fit parents. Senate Bill 5643 was one of them. While there were three distinct bills, each with a companion bill, all of the bills would have allowed a grandparent to petition the court to order visitation even when both parents are married.

House Bill 1607 and companion Senate Bill 5477 would have only required a grandparent to demonstrate that he had a significant relationship with the child, that the parent substantially interfered with that relationship, and the child would likely suffer harm if contact with the grandparent was not awarded. The court would only have had to consider the fit parents’ reasons for denying visitation and determine whether they were reasonable and in the best interest of the child once the grandparent presented their case for visitation rights.

These bills were strongly opposed as an attack on parental rights. Instead of presuming that fit parents make decisions in the best interest of their children, bills like these only require the court to give “deference” to the decisions of fit parents, while examining whether their decision was reasonable and in the best interest of the child.

Status:

1/28/2009

(House) Referred to the Human Services and Corrections

This bill failed in committee.

HSLDA's Position:
HSLDA is opposed to S.B. 5643.

Action Requested:
No further action needed.

Background:
Over the years, HSLDA has represented member families in conflict with
grandparents who did not like homeschooling. These grandparents would
try to stop the homeschooling through various means, including turning
the family over to child welfare services. Thankfully, most
grandparents we come in contact with at HSLDA support homeschooling
and in some situations even participate in the teaching.

However, these bills would give grandparents the right to sue parents
for visitation. If these bills become law, a grandparent could
petition the court for visitation rights when both parents are
together and not only when there is a pending dissolution, legal
separation, or modification of a parenting plan proceeding.

Of course, if a grandparent brings a suit under these bills, the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child and order
family mediation and a psychological evaluation of the child. Under
these bills the court only needs to give “deference” to the decisions
of fit parents, all the while deciding whether the parents’ decision
to limit contact with the grandparents is “reasonable.”

On the surface these bills appear to protect parents’ rights. However,
a grandparent is only required to demonstrate that he or she had a
“significant relationship” with the child that was allowed to be
formed and established by the parent, that the parent substantially
interfered with the grandparent’s relationship, and the child would
likely suffer harm or substantial risk of harm if contact with the
grandparent is not awarded. Once a grandparent demonstrates this, the
burden shifts to the parent to “prove why their decision to deny
visitation is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.” This
places the court in the position of deciding whether the parent was
justified in limiting contact with the grandparents.